The most recent grant rejection letter

Dear Juniorprof,
Thank you for submitting your proposal for supercool creative grant mechanism. Competition for this round of funding was extremely intense and, unfortunately, of the 8 gazzilion applications we received we were only able to fund 3. The reviewers were enthusiastic about your proposal; however, your application was not selected for funding. We wish you the best of luck in your continued fight to stay alive scientific endeavors.

Okay, so that’s not the real letter but its fairly close. The key point is that from the numbers that have been listed on these most recent rejection letters I am truly starting to get the impression that every member of the Society for Neuroscience is applying for the same foundation grants that I am.


10 responses to “The most recent grant rejection letter

  1. McKnight? Have you applied for Whitehall? If you can adopt a pure basic-science angle for your research, I have heard from my neuro colleagues that the Whitehall’s have a pretty good success rate.

  2. Damn, are we just glorified full-time beggars?

  3. Alex, That’s how I feel right now.

  4. CPP, no, but tried those too and got similar letters… Rita Allen Foundation recently had a pain basic science call for proposals. I’m hoping for better news on that front.

  5. Sorry for the bad news JP. I have some friends who are going through similar experiences. It sucks.

  6. Sorry to hear that JP. Hang in there dude.

  7. Just passing by.Btw, your website have great content!

    Making Money $150 An Hour

  8. Hey, at least you’re eligible to apply.
    I’m hearing from the buzz that all the private places are funding fewer grants due to sinking stocks.

    I’m personally of the opinion that I’d rather go for public competition if it means they have to take the time to justify why they’re not giving it to me. Then at least I get some feedback.

    These private ones, it can be totally political. I’ve heard way too many people doing these reviews saying they couldn’t choose, all the science was equally good, so they just went with… the people they know. Who don’t really need the money!

  9. yes, full time beggers–enjoy the farcical world of academia.

  10. also, we all know that private foundations are highly political, charged with who’s due, who owes who, who is PO’d from who, who has the right last name, nepotism, cronyism etc…

    with all the hundreds of hours to construct a cogent grants-it is a rigged game that is silly joke to most reasonable people.

    public is the way to go, although politics are everywhere, at least there is more objectivity, than receiving a form rejection letter without any justification or reviews (like a peer-reviewed article) for the rejection.

    who pays for all the hundreds of hours to construct/submit a grant?

    that is why the land of academia is farcical and a joke for those who want to truly share their knowledge.

    they seem to have $$$ to pay atheletes, or amateur coaches at colleges millions—where is that money for research that helps humans? where is the outrage or is it another case of american sheeple?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s